11 and specific right violated or threatened by unlawful or abusive actions by public agents […],” which is characterized by the protection of rights other than freedom of movement that, consequently, “are not protected by habeas corpus.” In the opinion of the said expert witness, “the mandado de segurança can be filed in cases of requests for […] telephone interceptions when the right to freedom of movement of the individual [subject of this measure] is not directly affected.” The Court observes that the individuals whose conversations were intervened and recorded enjoyed freedom of movement and that, furthermore, this right was not threatened directly by a coercive measure against their personal liberty during the course of the telephone interception or subsequently. Therefore, taking into account that the right to freedom of movement was not being considered directly in this case, the appropriate remedy for the presumed victims’ claim was not habeas corpus, but rather the mandado de segurança. 37. The Court observes that, when the alleged victims filed the mandado de segurança, on October 5, 1999,23 the telephone interceptions had indeed ceased and the dissemination of the recorded tapes taken place (infra paras. 97 and 94, respectively). Given the extinction of the mandado de segurança because the purpose had been eliminated, and the denial of the embargos de declaração, the State indicated that the representatives of the alleged victims should have filed other judicial remedies, such as a recurso ordinário constitucional or an ordinary hearing. These legal actions could possibly have resulted in another examination of the request for destruction of the recorded tapes by other courts. 38. The Court considers that the remedies that must be exhausted are those that are appropriate for the specific situation of the alleged human rights violations: in this case the interception and recording of telephone conversations and their dissemination. The Court understands that the destruction of the tapes containing the recordings would not determine the ceasing or the reparation of the violations claimed by the alleged victims. Indeed, the filing of a recurso ordinário constitucional or an ordinary hearing in order to obtain the destruction of the tapes of the recorded conversations could not repair the interception and dissemination that had already taken place, although it could be an appropriate remedy to prevent further dissemination and prevent possible human rights violations in the future. Hence, once the mandado de segurança was exhausted, it was unnecessary to file other legal mechanisms that would not have been intended to halt or repair the interception, recording and dissemination of telephone conversations that had already occurred. Based on the foregoing, the Court rejects this preliminary objection. C.2) Criminal proceedings and the “fourth instance formula” 39. The State claimed that the alleged victims denounced the facts before the Public Prosecutor’s Office, by means of a representação criminal against the public officials supposedly involved in the interception, recording and dissemination of the telephone conversations. The Court of Justice decided to close this investigation with regard to the Military Police and Judge Elizabeth Khater, and ordered the criminal action to proceed only against the Secretary of Public Security of the state of Paraná at the time, Cândido Martins, for the dissemination of the recorded tapes. This public official was acquitted on appeal. The State added that “the criminal action was duly opened and heard, in accordance with due process of law and within a normal and reasonable time (slightly more than four years).” It stressed that the criminal action had concluded when the Commission examined admissibility and that, in itself, precluded admission of the petition. The Commission could only have justified its intervention if it had considered that the criminal action had not been processed in accordance with due process of law; that the decision had been delivered in a way which was contrary to the law or to the American Convention, or that an unjustified 23 Cf. Record of the registration and opening of mandado de segurança No. 83.486-6 procedures (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, attachment 2, folio 1007).